August 28, 2014, 09:13:16 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 52
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:46:38 PM »
Don't confuse the Nikon D5100 auto-focus, with a Sony auto-focus. My NEX 5n, using face detection, does a good job of keeping a person in focus as they walk around a room, even at f/2.8. If Sony can do this, why not Canon ???
Well, part of it is that they are different technologies. The way a Canon camera autofocuses for pictures is different than how it does in Live View, and video uses the Live View technology. Canon would have to adapt the SLT technology with a translucent mirror to auto-focus in the exact same way a Sony does. In doing so, they'd give up all the photographic advantages of the mirror, which isn't worth it. Basically, the Nikon autofocus sucks because it doesn't use the focus sensor (due to the mirror being up). I doubt Canon will have solved this in a way that makes it comparable with what sony has in their SLT's, let alone what the FS-700 has.

The FS-700's AF is impressive (though he admitted it makes mistakes that he doesn't show), but, it's also technology from a $10k plus camera...I don't expect Canon to implement that in their Rebel line and have skipped the 5DIII with it.

Canon General / Re: Suggestions on new Canon DSLR -- thinking 60D
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:21:34 PM »
P.S. Don't bother with the 18-135 - what a piece of junk.  Not even a lens creep lock (18-200 does have a lock).  I do like the 15-85 but really not long enough for traveling.
Funny, I had the opposite experience, I hated the 18-200 (found it unusable for wide shots because of the distortion, and not very sharp on the long end), but I liked the 18-135, even though its far from perfect. And I never had issues with zoom creep on the 18-135, but the 18-200 needed the lock badly

That said, my suggestion is that you go with a T3i over the 60D and use the extra money to get the 50mm f/1.8. If what you're finding frustrating is the lack of speed, the ultra-zooms won't solve that problem. All of them are gonna be f/5.6 for most of their range, which won't be any faster or handle low-light any better than your point and shoot. The 50mm f/1.8 will, and by a significant margin. You'd still get one of the zooms, because they'll work great outdoors, but you'll have versatility that way.

Another way you could consider going is getting one of the 17-50 f/2.8 lenses from Tamron. It's basically the same cost as the 18-135, but, you'll likely find it much more useful. Then you can supplement that with the 55-250 for use outdoors when you want more range. Also, many places are currently running promos, you can probably get the 55-250 for damn near free, since its $150 off when purchased with one of the bodies. At that price, its worth it.

Lenses / Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 17, 2012, 05:42:05 PM »
Do you need f2.8 and are happy carrying the extra weight?
Yep, I'd say look at your pictures right now. Are a lot of them shot at f/2.8? Or, are a lot of them shot at lower shutter speeds (where IS would help)? Do you need to freeze subjects a lot (f/2.8 means faster shutter speed)? And, do you shoot a lot of the pictures at one end or the other (70mm, 200mm, etc)?

Just going from the T2i to a FF body will improve your light handling, so you might not need f/2.8 as much. Going to FF you'll lose some of the reach of the lens, but, also gain some on the wide end. If you use it at 70-135 a lot, you'll like that, if you use it at 200mm a lot, you might find you want more reach. In that case, there'd be some other things to consider.

Lenses / Re: 24-105mm f/4 L IS on a crop camera
« on: May 17, 2012, 05:36:26 PM »
So if the OP is looking for a one-lens solution with very little compromise in the optics, then 15-85 is a good choice.
Yeah, this would work if you want to give your wife one lens and let her use it without borrowing any of your gear. Otherwise, the compromises it makes (EF-S, stop less light at tele end, etc) probably aren't worth it.

While you probably won't be upgrading to full-frame anytime soon, with your current gear, you don't need a lens that goes ultra-wide, the Tokina covers that. I'd say 24-105 makes a lot of sense, since it complements your gear set well and sets you up perfectly if you do ever go full frame. And, it allows you two different walk-around lenses, rather than having multiple lenses with the exact same focal range (17-50ish).

Since the price difference is so small (<$100), I'd have to say that the Canon version and having AF is worth it. Both are generally graded out as equals i terms of image quality; the Samyang lenses have a little different look to them, so, its really up to what your eye likes more. The 85mm f/1.8's only problem is CA, but, that can be fixed pretty easily in post.

At the 14mm and 35mm end, the Samyang lenses make sense. They are 1/4 the price of the L lenses, and yet largely deliver amazing IQ on a budget, with the tradeoff being AF. When you're saving $1000, its worth the loss. Or if the 85mm f/18 wasn't known for great AF, it might be worth it. But, for how often you'd really use f/1.4, especially manually focusing, it seems a silly tradeoff

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II/24-70L II OR 5D III/24-70L
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:51:09 PM »
As an alternative, how about 5d2, 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4. You might even be able to get an 85 1.8 in budget which would be great for people?
That's an interesting alternative. The 24-104 with the 5DIII would be a really good all-around combo as well, though I think a 5dII combo with 2 lenses (whether they be WA, general zoom or tele) would probably be more versatile and more useful.

The camera itself does not provide 4 stops improvement in high ISO performance over the MkII.
But it does over a T1i, which the OP has now. Both cameras will be a BIG step up ISO wise.

The point was more that, unless you are shooting at f/2,8 a lot for DOF, you'll be able to freeze action and shoot in low-light perfectly fine with f/4 lenses if you're used to a T1i with EF-S lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:39:09 PM »
If the t4i is announced in June, how long will it take for the body to become available in stores in the US?
I'd doubt you would have one in your hands by June 11th, unless they announced it June 1st or sooner. With the rebel line, they are usually available within the month of its announcement (unlike say, the 1DX), but, Canon's production may be slow enough that that is not true this time. They might also have held off the announcement until they had enough stock to meet initial demand.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:36:45 PM »
The GH2 would be cool, except I have too many Canon lenses. Plus, I'm not crazy about GH2 color and the 2x crop. Canon has much better Color science and aesthetic IMO, but that's entirely subjective.
Yeah, I hear you about the color. I shoot the stuff I can on my 60D, and when I need slow-motion or autofocus, I use my TM700. The color definitely isn't as nice (kind of blue/grey).

I kind of want one anyway though, because the resolution is so crazy good...I feel like I'd be willing to take my chances in post with cleaning up the color some just to get that resolution

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 17, 2012, 02:01:59 PM »
Probably going to pick up a Rebel as a cheap video B-Cam to my soon-to-be Sony FS since I have too many canon lenses.

I just hope that the Rebel actually has true HD (not the soft up-res'd stuff). That and 1080p 60fps slow motion is all I ask for. But since the 5D3 doesn't have either of those, I'm not holding my breath.
Sounds like you want a hacked GH2. You'll get your resolution (comparable with your FS, etc), and you'll get 1080/60. Not to mention it will open up the ability to use FD lenses as well

edit: some examples,

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 17, 2012, 01:58:37 PM »
No more manual focus on video???? I'm interested
Here's what you'll get

Note that that is shot with probably f/11 or higher, so it doesn't even have much focus hunting to do. But, it still sounds awful and isn't that impressive. Take a shot with lower light and an aperture more like f/4, and its pretty unusable

If Canon had solved those issues in some brilliant or ingenious way, they'd have put it in the 5dIII. That they are just leaving it to the T4i tells me all I need to would have made pros angry since its not very good.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i/650D Specs [CR2.5]
« on: May 17, 2012, 01:42:19 PM »
Are the two incompatible? Why does touch screen mean no swivel LCD?
My XA-10's at work are a swivel screen that is entirely touch screen, so not only are they compatible, Canon already has the technology for it in a consumer level package. I imagine their Vixia stuff has it too

Sony is keeping a 16 mp sensor in their new Nex-F3 and A37. Perhaps both have determined that the marketing benefit of ever-higher megapixels has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Probably, especially because at the pixel density, its the equivalent of a pretty high MP body on full-frame. They'd lose too much low-light ability if they went to 22, 24, etc, and wouldn't really be gaining much. It's probably only Sony's sensor tech that allows them to last at 24mp.

The autofocus is going to be 10 times more usable. sounds like a great camera and a perfect backup for a 7d.
And you know this how? Every SLR with "autofocus" that I've seen is a joke...manual focus is much better there. Heck, even the Sony SLT auto-focus isn't that great, and it has some major advantages in that regard over a DSLR.

EOS Bodies / Re: NEED HELP W/LENSES: What should I get next...?
« on: May 17, 2012, 12:18:45 PM »
Given the fact that you only have 1 good lens, I'dd suggest to expand your focal range first before going into "specialty lenses". More range will increase your flexibility and can help you further personalize your photography. Once you've experience the whole spectrum of focal ranges, you'll probably know where your want to expand your photography further (portraits --> 85 L; landscapes --> 17 TS; macro; etc.)

1) 16-35
2) 70-200

Good luck, you'll enjoy any of these lenses!
I agree with this, though, I'd get the 70-200 before the 16-35, since the 16-24 range isn't really neccessary for wedding or portraiture, and 24 is wide enough for most landscapes.

Actually, what may work best is keeping the 24-105 for now, complimenting it with the 70-200. And then, at the next 8 month period, you can sell the 24-105 and decide exactly which 2 lenses you need. They'll probably be the 16-35 and a prime, but, it might be a T/S lens or a macro. For your purposes though, you'll definitely want something in that 70-200 range....the other ranges will depend on how much you do of each type of photography.

OTOH, it could also use the existing mount system and they can intro some trendy new pancake primes and short zooms to go with it. APS-C size sensor makes most sense to start but I guess we'll see.
Well, they did have rumors about a 40mm pancake lens being developed, and there were also rumors of some other lenses for mirrorless.

It'd be a shame if they aren't cross-compatible with EF, cause it'd be a nice way to get some cheap, small lenses that Canon doesn't seem to really make anymore.

Wouldn't it technically be three cameras? The T4I..the 650D...and then some mirrorless camera?
T4i and 650D are the same thing (much like the T3i/600D, T2i/550D, etc). One is named for the US market, the other for foreign markets. Apparently too many numbers confuse us Americans.

Lenses / Re: 4K to spend and I don't know what to do with it!!!
« on: May 15, 2012, 05:13:42 PM »
Also I didn't know the 16-35 was considered a specialty lens.  I heard alot of great reviews about getting good shots in tight spots when your inside and can't get the distance needed to frame properly.  What do you guys thinK?
It's specialty depending on your style. On a crop body it'd actually be a pretty decent general zoom...but that's only because of the crop factor cutting out the main area of distortion on the edges.

On full frame, the distortion at the wide end means you have to be very careful about where you place your subjects. Anything in the edges and you get some really fat looking people...not so good. And so unless you plan to use the 16-24 range a lot, it makes more sense to go another way.

Really depends a lot on your style. If you're used to zooms, a complete change to prime will take some adjustment that might be tough during wedding season

Lenses / Re: 4K to spend and I don't know what to do with it!!!
« on: May 15, 2012, 03:21:28 PM »
Also, in terms of places to shop for equipment, I've had good luck on FredMiranda.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 52